Expression of Concern
Following publication of this article [1], concerns were raised about the reported methodology and about potential discrepancies between the trial documentation provided as Supporting Information and the information reported in the article. The PLOS ONE Editors followed up on the issues raised with the authors and their institution to clarify the following issues:
- The Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval document (published as S1 Information in [1]) reports a study program start date that precedes the ethical approval date. The corresponding author indicated that the planned start date changed and that the patient enrollment dates reported in the Methods section of the article are correct. A representative of the Harbin Medical University Ethics Review Committee stated that the study commenced after the ethical approval date of 3 March, 2014.
- The Clinical Trial Registration (ChiCTR-TRC-14004644) mentions three treatment groups (M, L, and D), while the published article [1] reports on two treatment groups (M and D). The IRB approval document outlines methodology for two groups, but includes a Conclusions/Significance section that appears to report findings from three treatment groups. The corresponding author indicated that the initial study design included three treatment groups, but that the “L” group (levobupivacaine alone) was removed in response to the ethical review, and that the Conclusions/Significance section of the IRB approval document describes the expected research results at the time of the initial ethics application. A representative of the Harbin Medical University Ethics Review Committee stated that the researchers conducted the experiments according to the ethically approved protocol.
- Reference [8] in the original article [1] is described as a “pilot study” in which “epidural dexmedetomidine…shortened the time of first flatus of patients after nephrectomy” though this was noted as a trend that did not reach statistical significance. The corresponding author indicated that time to first flatus data were observed but not published in reference [8] and that reference [8] was not the pilot study for [1]. The corresponding author indicated that a separate pilot study of 35 patients (17 in group D, 18 in group M) was carried out prior to the main study reported in [1], which included 75 patients. The corresponding author also indicated that both the pilot study (n = 35) and the main study (n = 75) were carried out under the IRB approval HMUIRB20140004 (S1 Information [1]). However, it is noted that the English language approval document (S1 Information [1]) specifies only a single study of 75 patients, while the Chinese language version of the document (provided here as Supporting Information S1 File) does not specify a sample size.
- The IRB approval document (S1 Information [1]) indicates that group D is approved to receive a dose of 60μg dexmedetomidine in 150ml levobupivocaine 0.125% at 3ml h-1 for two days. The article reports the use of a higher dosage of 80μg dexmedetomidine in 150ml levobupivocaine 0.125% at 3ml h-1 for two days. The corresponding author indicated that the initial study design used a lower dose of epidural dexmedetomidine in consideration of safety, but that it was later found that 60μg dexmedetomidine could not provide a satisfactory analgesic effect, and after discussion with experts it was considered that the dosage should be increased to 80 μg, but it was not reported to the ethics committee in time to revise the dose. The higher dose of 80μg dexmedetomidine was used for both the pilot study and the main study. A representative of the Harbin Medical University Ethics Review Committee stated that the modified dose was not reported to the ethics committee in time.
Given the information received in post-publication follow up, the PLOS ONE Editors consider that the concerns about discrepancies in the study start dates and the study design are resolved. The PLOS ONE Editors issue this Expression of Concern in light of the divergence from the IRB-approved dosage that was not reported to the IRB in advance of the pilot study or the main study, and further note that it is not clear from the available documentation that the ethical approval covered an additional pilot study of 35 patients.
The authors have provided the underlying data for the study as Supporting Information (S2 File). The data were reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board, who identified errors in Tables 1–3 and noted that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test used to test data for normal distribution is an acceptable test but has low power with small sample sizes.
In Table 1, there is an error in the percentage of right-sided versus left-sided colectomies, and in the p-value for type of colectomy. Here the authors provide a revised Table 1.
In Table 2, the underlying data for total dose of analgesic are not normally distributed, so the independent two-sample t-test is not appropriate. Here the authors provide a revised Table 2 in which the values are reported as mean (interquartile range) and the p-value is calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test.
In Table 3, there is an error in the percentage of patients reported as experiencing nausea and vomiting. Here the authors provide a revised Table 3.
The corresponding author stated that the revised results still support the conclusions of the article.
In the published article [1], the fifth paragraph of the Discussion section includes text that was previously published in an earlier study by some of the same authors (cited as reference [8] of the article).
21 Dec 2022: The PLOS ONE Editors (2022) Expression of Concern: Epidural Co-Administration of Dexmedetomidine and Levobupivacaine Improves the Gastrointestinal Motility Function after Colonic Resection in Comparison to Co-Administration of Morphine and Levobupivacaine. PLOS ONE 17(12): e0279703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279703 View expression of concern
Figures
Abstract
Gastrointestinal motility may be impaired after intestinal surgery. Epidural morphine is effective in controlling postoperative pain, but can further reduce gastrointestinal motility. Here, we aimed to investigate the effects of epidural dexmedetomidine on gastrointestinal motility in patients undergoing colonic resection. Seventy-four patients undergoing colonic resection were enrolled in this clinical trial and allocated randomly to treatment with dexmedetomidine (D group) or morphine (M group). The D group received a loading dose epidural administration of 3 ml dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg kg-1) and then a continuous epidural administration of 80 μg dexmedetomidine in 150 ml levobupivacaine (0.125%) at 3 ml h-1 for two days. The M group received a loading dose epidural administration of 3 ml morphine (0.03 mg kg-1) and then a continuous epidural administration of 4.5 mg morphine in 150 ml levobupivacaine at 3 ml h-1 for two days. Verbal rating score (VRS), postoperative analgesic requirements, side effects related to analgesia, the time to postoperative first flatus (FFL) and first feces (FFE) were recorded. VRS and postoperative analgesic requirements were not significantly different between treatment groups. In contrast, the time to FFL and time to FFE were significant longer in M group in comparison to D group (P < 0.05). Moreover, patients in M group had a significantly higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus (P < 0.05). No patients showed neurologic deficits in either group. In comparison to morphine, epidural dexmedetomidine is safe and beneficial for the recovery of gastrointestinal motility after colonic resection when used as an adjunct with levobupivacaine for postoperative pain control.
Citation: Zeng X-Z, Lu Z-F, Lv X-Q, Guo Y-P, Cui X-G (2016) Epidural Co-Administration of Dexmedetomidine and Levobupivacaine Improves the Gastrointestinal Motility Function after Colonic Resection in Comparison to Co-Administration of Morphine and Levobupivacaine. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146215
Editor: Wan Yee Joseph Lau, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG
Received: August 18, 2015; Accepted: December 14, 2015; Published: January 11, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Zeng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Gastrointestinal motility is commonly impaired after intestinal surgery,[1] which causes an increased incidence of postoperative ileus.[2] Co-administration of epidural morphine and local anaesthetic is a common and effective method of postoperative pain control. However, postoperative epidural morphine is associated with further reductions in gastrointestinal motility. Thus, improved epidural anaesthetic management for postoperative pain control that does not impair gastrointestinal motility would be beneficial.
Dexmedetomidine is a centrally selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist that can be given as either a sedative or an analgesic without significant respiratory depression.[3] In recent years, dexmedetomidine has been administered for either spinal or epidural anesthesia[4–7] in combination with local anaesthetics. In these studies, dexmedetomidine potentiated local anesthesia and had few side effects. In our previous study, epidural dexmedetomidine not only potentiated the effects of local anesthetics, but also shortened the time of first flatus of patients after nephrectomy.[8] Although statistical significance was not observed in this pilot study, the trend was compelling and warranted further study. Furthermore, this trend is supported by animal studies.[9] For example, investigators have found that dexmedetomidine showed beneficial effects on the recovery of intestinal motility in rats.[9] However, some disagreement in the literature exists regarding the effects of dexmedetomidine.[10, 11] Thus, the benefits of epidural dexmedetomidine remain largely unknown, although some studies suggest that dexmedetomidine is preferential to morphine in terms of gastrointestinal motility.
From these studies, we hypothesized that dexmedetomidine influences gastrointestinal motility, and speculated that differences in the dose and route of administration of dexmedetomidine may largely explain the contradictory reports present within the literature. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of low dose epidural dexmedetomidine on gastrointestinal motility after colonic resection in comparison to co-administration of morphine and levobupivacaine. The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was the time to postoperative first flatus, a variable reflecting gastrointestinal motility.
Materials and Methods
Study subjects
This randomised, double blind, prospective, controlled study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Harbin Medical University, China (approval number: HMUIRB20140004) and registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry at www.chictr.org on 14 May 2014 (registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-14004644). With written consent, 74 American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status I/II patients undergoing elective colonic resection in the Second Hospital of Harbin Medical University between May 2014 and December 2014 were enrolled. To eliminate any possible effects of surgical technique, all procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon. The surgeries were performed through a midline laparotomy; all anastomoses were performed using mechanical staplers. Patients received standardized care during the perioperative period, and were allowed to ingest small amounts of water orally during the first 24h post-operative. After 24h post-operative, patients were allowed ingest semi-solid food. Progression to a normal diet was not allowed until first flatus occurred. No subjects had a history of any of the following conditions: neurologic or psychiatric illness, allergy to local anaesthetic agents, diabetes, gastrointestinal motility disorder, prior abdominal surgery, renal or hepatic insufficiency, bleeding or coagulation abnormalities, or anticoagulant therapy.
Treatment groups
Using a computer-generated random number table, the patients were randomly assigned to Dexmedetomidine group (D group) or Morphine group (M group) and received different postoperative analgesia plans following surgical completion. Patients in the D group had the following treatment regimen: a loading dose epidural administration of 3 ml dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg kg-1) and then a continuous epidural administration of 80 μg dexmedetomidine in 150 ml levobupivacaine 0.125% at 3 ml h-1 for two days. Patients in the M group had the following treatment regimen: a loading dose epidural administration of 3 ml morphine (0.03 mg kg-1) and then a continuous epidural administration of 4.5 mg morphine in 150 ml levobupivacaine 0.125% at 3 ml h-1 for two days.
Preparation for anesthesia
The basic pain threshold was expressed as the pain threshold (PTh) and pain tolerance threshold (PTTh), and the postoperative pain was measured using an 11-point verbal rating score (VRS, 0 to 10). All patients received midazolam 2.0 mg intravenously (IV) and fentanyl 0.05 mg IV five minutes before the baseline measurement and the epidural catheterization. Baseline measurements included heart rate (HR), non-invasive arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, PTh, and PTTh.
Implementation of anesthesia
The epidural catheter was placed in the T10/11 interspace using a midline approach. The epidural space was identified by loss of resistance to saline and a test-dose of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline 3.0 ml to detect intrathecal or intravascular misplacement. After the test, 0.33% levobupivacaine was administered. When the sensory block level was ideal, patients underwent anaesthetic induction and tracheal intubation after propofol 2 mg kg-1, fentanyl 3μg kg-1 and vecuronium 0.1 mg kg-1, and general anesthesia was maintained with 2 L min-1 50% O2 and 1.3~2.0% sevoflurane using a semi-closed circle system. Muscle relaxation was maintained with vecuronium 0.1 mg (kg h)-1. Patients received 5 ml levobupivacaine 0.33% at one hour intervals until the end of surgery. When the surgeon closed the peritoneum, a continuous infusor (Baxter®, USA) was attached to the epidural catheter for 48 h postoperative pain control.
Assessments
To maintain blinding, the anaesthetist who prepared the study solution did not perform the epidural and was not involved in management or assessments. VRS was assessed at 2h, 4h, 6h, 8h, 16h, 24h and 48h after surgery, both at rest and after coughing. Postoperative analgesic requirements were met with IV flurbiprofen 100 mg at the patient’s request. The time to the first analgesic and total dose of analgesic were recorded. The times to postoperative first flatus (FFL) and first feces (FFE) were recorded, which were the primary and second efficacy endpoints of the study, respectively. When FFL occurred within the first postoperative 6 hours, we considered the occurrence of FFL may reflect the emptying of rectal gas rather than recovery of colonic transit, and the time to second flatus was recorded as the true recovery of colonic transit. Side effects potentially related to dexmedetomidine and morphine, such as bradycardia, hypotension, nausea and vomiting, skin itching were recorded. Hypotension was defined as the mean arterial pressure less than 30% from baseline for 60 seconds, and bradycardia was defined as heart rate (HR) less than 50 beats per minute. For the assessment of the safety of epidural dexmedetomidine, neurologic deficits included pain, numbness, and lack strength, and were assessed at 24 h, 48 h, 72h and 7 days after surgery.
Statistical analysis
A power analysis was performed using the PASS 13.0 software (NCSS LLC) and a two-sample t-test was used based on a previous pilot study (means: 37.4 h (dexmedetomidine group) and 55.9 h (morphine group); SD: 22.8 h) revealed a sample size of 33 patients was required in each group to achieve a power of 90% and an α of 0.05 for detection of difference in the time to FFL between the two groups. To compensate for possible dropouts, a total 74 cases (37 for each group) were enrolled for study. Data were tested for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Parametric data were described as mean and standard deviation, and non-parametric data as median and interquartile range. Gender, type of colectomy, and the incidence of complications were analysed using the chi-squared test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the pain scores between groups. For other variables showing a normal distribution, an independent two-sample t-test was used for intergroup comparisons. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software (IBM®, Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to D or M treatment groups. Three patients (n = 1 from the D group; n = 2 from the M group) were withdrawn for various reasons: a history of gastrointestinal midline laparotomy (n = 2), and psychiatric disease (n = 1). The postoperative analgesic solution and gastrointestinal motility assessments were performed in 71 patients. Three of these had mechanical bowel obstructions or surgical complications requiring intervention within the first 5 days: 2 D group patients (internal herniation, n = 1; adhesion, n = 1); 1 M group patient (intraperitoneal bleeding, n = 1). One patient in the M group was excluded because of epidural catheter blockage. Therefore, 67 patients completed the study (Fig 1). Demographics and surgical aspects did not differ significantly between the two groups (Table 1).
Postoperative pain control
At rest, the highest median VRS was 2 and the maximum range of interquartile range was 0 to 3 at all points of evaluation for both groups, indicating satisfactory levels of pain control. There were no significant differences between the M and D groups at any timepoint. During coughing, VRS increased at the majority of timepoints, however the highest median VRS scores was 3 and the maximum range of interquartile range was 0 to 4 at all points of evaluation for both groups, indicating a similar satisfactory level of pain control. In addition, no significant differences were observed between groups in either the time to the first analgesic dose or the total dose of analgesic (Table 2).
Recovery of gastrointestinal motility
The time to the FFL was 36.7 ± 11.7 h for the D group (mean ± SD), and 44.8 ± 17.8 h for the M group (P < 0.05). The time to the FFE was 58.7 ± 15 h for the D group and 68.5 ± 22.9 h for the M group (P < 0.05) (Fig 2). Thus, the D group demonstrated a significantly shorter time period for recovery of gastrointestinal motility, across both study endpoints.
Values are mean ± SD. FFL = first flatus, FFE = first feces, D = dexmedetomidine, M = morphine. * P<0.05 compared with M group.
Postoperative side effects related analgesic
Patients in the M group had a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting and pruritus in comparison to the D group (Table 3, P < 0.05). In contrast, there were no significant differences between the M and D groups in the incidence of bradycardia or hypotension. No patients showed neurologic deficits in either group (Table 3).
Discussion
First, our study found that patients who received low dose epidural dexmedetomidine in addition to levobupivacaine showed similar results for postoperative pain control in comparison to the co-administration of epidural morphine and levobupivacaine. Furthermore, gastrointestinal motility function was significantly improved with low dose epidural dexmedetomidine in comparison to epidural morphine. In our study, dexmedetomidine did not cause any discernable side effects. In fact, dexmedetomidine resulted in a reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus in comparison to epidural morphine.
The results of postoperative pain control in this study indicate that co-administration of low dose epidural dexmedetomidine and levobupivacaine can provide approximate analgesia compared with morphine and levobupivacaine. The mechanisms by which dexmedetomidine mediates intra-epidural analgesia are still not clear, but may be related to two aspects. Firstly, dexmedetomidine is known to improve the analgesia effect of local anaesthetics. For example, dexmedetomidine binds α2A, α2B and α2C adrenoceptors with high affinity.[12] Tatsushi Y et al found that the α2-adrenoceptor agonist dose dependently enhanced local anesthetic action via α2A-adrenoceptors.[13] Thus, the analgesic effect mediated by epidural dexmedetomidine may reflect synergy with levobupivacaine. On the other hand, epidural dexmedetomidine itself may provide analgesia. Due to its lipophilicity, dexmedetomidine rapidly appears in the cerebrospinal fluid and has been demonstrated to exhibit a central analgesic effect.[3, 14] In addition, the analgesic effects may be mediated through spinal, supraspinal, and peripheral action. Experts have found that adrenergic agonists can inhibit release of peptides from spinal cord slices and inhibit dorsal horn nociceptive neurons.[15] Moreover, a recent study indicated that the antinociceptive effect of dexmedetomidine may result from its action on spinal cord substantia gelatinosa.[16] In summary, dexmedetomidine may exert both direct and indirect analgesic effects, although the precise mechanisms are only partly understood.
The present study found that low dose epidural dexmedetomidine significantly shortens the time to postoperative first flatus and feces, consistent with our prior observations.[8] However and as previously mentioned, some disagreement exists in the literature regarding the precise effects of dexmedetomidine on GI motility. For example, one previous study assessed the gastrointestinal effects of dexmedetomidine infusion in humans and observed that dexmedetomidine did not significantly inhibit gastric emptying.[17] On the other side, another animal study showed that dexmedetomidine weakly inhibited gastric emptying.[11] Although overall dexmedetomidine increased intestinal transit time, this increase was less potent than morphine.[11] The slight contradictions in the literature on the subject of dexmedetomidine effects on gastrointestinal motility may be easily explained by differences in dosage and route of delivery. For example, investigators found that the range of ED50 (50% Effective Dose) for the antinociceptive effect of dexmedetomidine (which was systemic administered) is much less than the ED50 for its effects on gastric emptying. In contrast, the ED50 for the antinociceptive effect of morphine includes the ED50 for gastric emptying.[11] Overall, these results suggest that the antinociceptive effects of dexmedetomidine may be achieved without detrimental effects on GI motility. These results also further support the beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine on gastrointestinal motility, as compared to morphine.
Importantly, the dose of dexmedetomidine may also contribute to the gastrointestinal motility effects. Two clinical studies with opposite results demonstrate the dose dependent effects of dexmedetomidine. Patients received dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg kg-1 infused over 20 min, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7μg (kg h) -1 for 190 min (total dose nearly 3.1 μg kg-1) showed inhibited gastric emptying and gastrointestinal transit.[10] In contrast, gastric emptying was not delayed when the total dose was decreased to 1.0 μg kg-1.[17]
With respect to safety issues, only levobupivacaine, dexmedetomidine and sodium chloride, without preservatives, were administered epidurally in our study. One animal experiment found that epidural dexmedetomidine may have harmful effects on the myelin sheath, possibly related to the pH of dexmedetomidine.[18] Anaesthetic solutions of low pH were once suspected to cause neurotoxicity, but this notion has been subsequently discredited.[19] Importantly, no patients in our study showed neurologic deficits. This result was consistent with previous studies, and suggested that this epidural anaesthetic management for postoperative pain control is safe. Importantly, our study is limited by a relatively modest sample size, and future studies must confirm the safety of epidural dexmedetomidine. Many studies have used peripheral, intrathecal or epidural injection without reporting neurologic deficits,[4–8, 20–23] with some of these studies administering higher epidural doses than used in the present study. Animal experiments support the safety of intrathecal dexmedetomidine as well. For example, dexmedetomidine showed no significant pathologic impact on the spinal cord, and in fact showed potential protective effects against lignocaine-induced neural cell death[24]. Thus, while large scale studies are needed, epidural dexmedetomidine appears to be both safe and efficacious.
There are several limitations to the present study. All the patients in this study were ASA I or II and without significant co-morbidities. Therefore, the result of this study cannot be generalized for ASA III patients and above. Also, the parameters used to evaluate gastrointestinal motility were clinical, whereas scintigraphic recording of gastrointestinal transit is considered the gold standard. In future studies, we will confirm the results using scintigraphic recording and extend our research to include ASA III patients and above. In conclusion, the present clinical study highlights the benefit of epidural dexmedetomidine as an adjunct for postoperative pain control with levobupivacaine.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: XC. Performed the experiments: XZ ZL YG. Analyzed the data: ZL XL. Wrote the paper: XC XZ.
References
- 1. Fukuda H, Tsuchida D, Koda K, Miyazaki M, Pappas TN, Takahashi T. Impaired gastric motor activity after abdominal surgery in rats. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2005; 17(2):245–250. pmid:15787944
- 2. Holte K, Kehlet H. Postoperative ileus: a preventable event. Br J Surg 2000; 87(11):1480–1493. pmid:11091234
- 3. Ebert TJ, Hall JE, Barney JA, Uhrich TD, Colinco MD. The effects of increasing plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine in humans. Anesthesiology 2000; 93(2):382–394. pmid:10910487
- 4. Salgado PF, Sabbag AT, Silva PC, Brienze SL, Dalto HP, Modolo NS, et al. [Synergistic effect between dexmedetomidine and 0.75% ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia]. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2008; 54(2):110–115. pmid:18506317
- 5. El-Hennawy AM, Abd-Elwahab AM, Abd-Elmaksoud AM, El-Ozairy HS, Boulis SR. Addition of clonidine or dexmedetomidine to bupivacaine prolongs caudal analgesia in children. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103(2):268–274. pmid:19541679
- 6. Kanazi GE, Aouad MT, Jabbour-Khoury SI, Al Jazzar MD, Alameddine MM, Al-Yaman R, et al. Effect of low-dose dexmedetomidine or clonidine on the characteristics of bupivacaine spinal block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50(2):222–227. pmid:16430546
- 7. Mohamed AA, Fares KM, Mohamed SA. Efficacy of intrathecally administered dexmedetomidine versus dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery. Pain Physician 2012; 15(4):339–348. pmid:22828688
- 8. Zeng XZ, Xu YM, Cui XG, Guo YP, Li WZ. Low-dose epidural dexmedetomidine improves thoracic epidural anesthesia for nephrectomy. Anaesth Intensive Care 2014; 42(2):185–190. pmid:24580383
- 9. Aydin C, Bagcivan I, Gursoy S, Altun A, Topcu O, Koyuncu A. Altered spontaneous contractions of the ileum by anesthetic agents in rats exposed to peritonitis. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(13):1620–1624. pmid:19340905
- 10. Iirola T, Vilo S, Aantaa R, Wendelin-Saarenhovi M, Neuvonen PJ, Scheinin M, Olkkola KT. Dexmedetomidine inhibits gastric emptying and oro-caecal transit in healthy volunteers. Br J Anaesth 2011; 106(4):522–527. pmid:21307009
- 11. Asai T, Mapleson WW, Power I. Differential effects of clonidine and dexmedetomidine on gastric emptying and gastrointestinal transit in the rat. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78(3):301–307. pmid:9135310
- 12. Ruffolo RR Jr, Nichols AJ, Stadel JM, Hieble JP. Pharmacologic and therapeutic applications of alpha 2-adrenoceptor subtypes. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1993; 33:243–279. pmid:8098595
- 13. Yoshitomi T, Kohjitani A, Maeda S, Higuchi H, Shimada M, Miyawaki T. Dexmedetomidine enhances the local anesthetic action of lidocaine via an alpha-2A adrenoceptor. Anesth Analg 2008; 107(1):96–101. pmid:18635472
- 14. Asano T, Dohi S, Ohta S, Shimonaka H, Iida H. Antinociception by epidural and systemic alpha(2)-adrenoceptor agonists and their binding affinity in rat spinal cord and brain. Anesth Analg 2000; 90(2):400–407. pmid:10648329
- 15. Fairbanks CA, Stone LS, Kitto KF, Nguyen HO, Posthumus IJ, Wilcox GL. alpha(2C)-Adrenergic receptors mediate spinal analgesia and adrenergic-opioid synergy. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002; 300(1):282–290. pmid:11752127
- 16. Ishii H, Kohno T, Yamakura T, Ikoma M, Baba H. Action of dexmedetomidine on the substantia gelatinosa neurons of the rat spinal cord. Eur J Neurosci 2008; 27(12):3182–3190. pmid:18554299
- 17. Memis D, Dokmeci D, Karamanlioglu B, Turan A, Ture M. A comparison of the effect on gastric emptying of propofol or dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients: preliminary study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23(8):700–704. pmid:16805936
- 18. Konakci S, Adanir T, Yilmaz G, Rezanko T. The efficacy and neurotoxicity of dexmedetomidine administered via the epidural route. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008; 25(5):403–409. pmid:18088445
- 19. Ravindran RS, Turner MS, Muller J. Neurologic effects of subarachnoid administration of 2-chloroprocaine-CE, bupivacaine, and low pH normal saline in dogs. Anesth Analg 1982;61(3):279–283. pmid:7199841
- 20. Rancourt MP, Albert NT, Cote M, Letourneau DR, Bernard PM. Posterior tibial nerve sensory blockade duration prolonged by adding dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine. Anesth Analg 2012; 115(4):958–962. pmid:22826530
- 21. Vieira AM, Schnaider TB, Brandao AC, Pereira FA, Costa ED, Fonseca CE. [Epidural clonidine or dexmedetomidine for post-cholecystectomy analgesia and sedation.]. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2004; 54(4):473–478. pmid:19471755
- 22. Solanki SL, Bharti N, Batra YK, Jain A, Kumar P, Nikhar SA. The analgesic effect of intrathecal dexmedetomidine or clonidine, with bupivacaine, in trauma patients undergoing lower limb surgery: a randomised, double-blind study. Anaesth Intensive Care 2013; 41(1):51–56. pmid:23362890
- 23. Gupta R, Bogra J, Verma R, Kohli M, Kushwaha JK, Kumar S. Dexmedetomidine as an intrathecal adjuvant for postoperative analgesia. Indian J Anaesth 2011; 55(4):347–351. pmid:22013249
- 24. Zhang H, Zhou F, Li C, Kong M, Liu H, Zhang P, et al. Molecular mechanisms underlying the analgesic property of intrathecal dexmedetomidine and its neurotoxicity evaluation: an in vivo and in vitro experimental study. PLoS One 2013; 8(2):e55556. pmid:23409000